Re: [PATCH net-next] modules: allow modprobe load regular elf binaries
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2018-03-09 18:15:27
Also in:
lkml, netdev
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:32:36AM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 3/9/18 8:24 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On 3/9/18 7:16 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
On Mar 8, 2018, at 9:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov [off-list ref] wrote: On 3/8/18 7:54 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
On Mar 8, 2018, at 7:06 PM, Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote: Honestly, that "read twice" thing may be what scuttles this. Initially, I thought it was a non-issue, because anybody who controls the module subdirectory enough to rewrite files would be in a position to just execute the file itself directly instead.On further consideration, I think there’s another showstopper. This patch is a potentially severe ABI break. Right now, loading a module *copies* it into memory and does not hold a reference to the underlying fs. With the patch applied, all kinds of use cases can break in gnarly ways. Initramfs is maybe okay, but initrd may be screwed. If you load an ET_EXEC module from initrd, then umount it, then clear the ramdisk, something will go horribly wrong. Exactly what goes wrong depends on whether userspace notices that umount() failed. Similarly, if you load one of these modules over a network and then lose your connection, you have a problem.there is not abi breakage and file cannot disappear from running task. One cannot umount fs while file is still being used.Sure it is. Without your patch, init_module doesn’t keep using the file, so it’s common practice to load a module and then delete or unmount it. With your patch, the unmount case breaks. This is likely to break existing userspace, so, in Linux speak it’s an ABI break.please read the patch again. file is only used in case of umh modules. There is zero difference in default case.Say I'm running some distro or other working Linux setup. I upgrade my kernel to a kernel that uses umh modules. The user tooling generates some kind of boot entry that references the new kernel image, and it also generates a list of modules to be loaded at various times in the boot process. This list might, and probably should, include one or more umh modules. (You are being very careful to make sure that depmod keeps working, so umh modules are clearly intended to work with existing tooling.) So now I have a kernel image and some modules to be loaded from various places. And I have an init script (initramfs's '/init' or similar) that will call init_module() on that .ko file. That script was certainly written under the assumption that, once init_module() returns, the kernel is done with the .ko file. With your patch applied, that assumption is no longer true.There is no intent to use umh modules during boot process.
For _your_ use case, yes. For mine and Andy's and someone else's in the future, it might be :) You are creating a very generic, new, user/kernel api that a whole bunch of people are going to want to use. Let's not hamper the ability for us all to use this right from the beginning please.
This is not a replacement for drivers and kernel modules. From your earlier comments regarding usb driver as umh module I suspect you're assuming that everything will sooner or later will convert to umh model.
We have userspace drivers for USB today, being able to drag that out-of-tree codebase into the kernel is a _HUGE_ bonus, and something that I would love to do for a lot of reasons. I also can see moving some of our existing in-kernel drivers out of the kernel in a way that provides "it just works" functionality by using this type of feature. So again, please don't prevent us from using this, otherwise you should be just calling this "bpf_usermode_helper" :) Oh, and for the record, I like Andy's proposal as well as dumping this into a kernel module "blob" with the exception that this now would take up unswapable memory, which isn't the nicest and is one big reason we removed the in-kernel-memory firmware blobs many years ago. thanks, greg k-h